Gandasuli (early 8th century CE)

Author of digital edition: Arlo Griffiths (argr).

Language: Old Malay (omy) [Kawi (kawi)].

Repository: Nusantara Epigraphy (tfc-nusantara-epigraphy).

Identifier: DHARMA_INSIDENKGandasuli.

File path: xml/DHARMA_INSIDENKGandasuli.xml.

Version: (d960475), last modified (5e4518f).

Edition

⟨1⟩ || namaś śivāya, Au mahājana ḍi sahiṅ ālas· partapān· tuha ṅuḍa laki vini maṇḍaṅar· vuAt·tānta parāvis·, ¿dhimi?

⟨2⟩ gatiṇḍa ḍaṁ karayān· partapān· ratnamaheśvara siḍa busu maun· namāṇḍa ḍaṁ karayān lāki busu Iti namāṇḍa ḍaṁ karayān· vini(°)

⟨3⟩ Atya(nta) dharmiṣṭha siḍa ḍuA° Ayāṇḍa ⟨ḍa⟩ṁ karayān· lāki parpuAntaṅ a(na)kabbi namaṇḍa, Ayāṇḍa ḍaṁ karayān· vini parpuAntaṁ panuAḥhan· nama-

⟨4⟩ ṇḍa° siḍa Inan ḍuA Atibhāgya siḍa varanak· puruṣaratna varanak· strīratna° Aḍiṇḍa ḍaṁ karayān· lāki busu ta(mva) namaṇḍa, Iparḍa ḍaṁ karayā-

⟨5⟩ n parttapān· busu ba(jra) busūttara ḍaṅaṇḍa sānak· busu tara(l·) busu U(vḍ)ai, ḍa(ṅa)ṇḍa sapopo busu h(uv)uriya n(āma) pamāṇḍa viṣṇuratha nam(ā)ṇḍa sarabhāra ḍi

⟨6⟩ nāyaka vatak bunut· tathāpi ḍaṅaṇḍa sapopo busu padaruṁṅa nāmāṇḍa sā(rabhāra) ḍi nāyaka vatak ka(yu) hāsam· tathāpi va□ranak· siḍa busu putiḥ paṅin· tujuḥ

⟨7⟩ pahi(k/t)· svast(i) pagar vvassi Āvat· Iṇḍu Anakḍa kulaputrī Inan parāvis· tathāpi pagar vvatu pagar duri si buha samvu[*](ḥ) vitaka dadaṁ vihāra nagarī Inanta baña-

⟨8⟩ kña Anakḍa ḍaṁ karayān· partapān· puṇyaprabhāvāṇḍa ḍaṁ karayān· partapān· kathamapi sukha subhikṣa, ya rājya ḍirakṣa Iya sabañakña yaṁ deśa Itas-ta(taḥ)

⟨9⟩ pūrvva dakṣiṇa paścima Uttara Itas-tataḥ Iya maṁstuti guṇāṇḍa ḍaṁ karayān· partapān·, tathāpi Āḍa Ācāryyāṇḍa gālava nāmaṇḍa sthāpaka siḍa tathāpi

⟨10⟩ bapuhmuṇḍa ḍaṁ karayān· śivārjita nāmaṇḍa nāyaka ḍi pra(ṁ) kapulaṁ siḍa Inan parāvis· siḍa ta sahāyāṇḍa ḍi dharma puṇya kuśala, Iya makajāḍi pra-

⟨11⟩ tiṣṭa di hyaṁ hāji tarkalaut saṁ hyaṁ vintaṁ prasāda suprayukta-kṣai⟨tra⟩-sahita Iyaṁ mātraña viniḥnya kṣetra ḍi taraḥ buṅa, tlu bariḥ pragāluḥ Ampa lattir·

⟨12⟩ pamaṇḍyan· tlu lattir· kinaĀyvan· Ampa lattir· vunu tlu lattir· pavijaḥhan· ḍuA lattir· kayvara maṇḍar· ḍuA lattir· va⊔ṅun· baharu salattir· muṇḍu

⟨13⟩ ḍuA lattir· kakalyan· salattir· tarukān· salattir· mātrāña viniḥ ḍi taraḥ buṅa parāvis· Ampa poluḥ salattir· parttakan· ḍi valunu(,) papos(p)uḥ

⟨14⟩ ḍi pragāluḥ parpuAnta varpattiḥ m(ā)nalu nāmāṇḍa naiyaka ḍi kyu buṁṅan· sahăyāṇḍa varpatiḥ puliṁ hasin nāmāṇḍa nāyaka ḍi māntyasiḥ

⟨15⟩ ḍ¿u? punta ma(rhyaṁ) jñānatatva nāmāṇḍa

Apparatus

⟨1⟩ Au- ⬦ Oṁ C • Damais (1968: 322, 339) noted that the text shows Au and not O, but did not object to De Casparis’ idea that a cecak is to be supplied. It seems quite uncertain to us that the Sanskrit sacred syllable om is intended here. — ⟨1⟩ tuhaṅ uḍa ⬦ tuha ṅuda C • Unless we are dealing with a scribal error for muda, it is unclear whether the ṅ is a prefix or an enclitic. If the latter, we seem to observe the same usage of ṅ in partuanta-ṅ that occurs twice in line 3. But ṅuda exists in Balinese.

⟨2⟩ maun· ⬦ plār· C • The vowel is clearly the same as in tarkalaut in line 11.

⟨3⟩ dharmiṣṭha ⬦ dharma(stha) C. — ⟨3⟩ parpuAntaṅ a(na)kabbi ⬦ parpuAnta jantakabbi C. — ⟨3⟩ parpuAntaṁ ⬦ parpuAnta C.

⟨4⟩ Atibhāgya ⬦ Adhi(rā)kṣa C. — ⟨4⟩ puruṣaratna ⬦ pu(tra) maratna C • The correct reading was actually proposed by De Casparis himself in his note 12. — ⟨4⟩ ta(mva) ⬦ tarbba C.

⟨5⟩ ḍaṅaṇḍa ⬦ Udaṇḍa C. — ⟨5⟩ tara(l·) ⬦ taray· C. — ⟨5⟩ U(vḍ)ai, ⬦ daṇḍai C. — ⟨5⟩ ḍaṅaṇḍa ⬦ Udaṇḍa C. — ⟨5⟩ h(uv)uriya n(āma) ⬦ huvuriyan C. — ⟨5⟩ viṣṇuratha ⬦ viṣṇurata C.

⟨6⟩ ḍaṅaṇḍa ⬦ Udaṇḍa C. — ⟨6⟩ padaruṁṅa ⬦ padaraṅan C. — ⟨6⟩ sā(rabhāra) ⬦ sarabhāra C • Actually it looks more like sānakana. — ⟨6⟩ ka(yu) hāsam ⬦ kahuluAn C. — ⟨6⟩ paṅir· tujuḥ ⬦ padi, taijaḥ C.

⟨7⟩ Āvat· ⬦ Avat· C. — ⟨7⟩ samvu[1×](ḥ) ⬦ sampu(h) [1*] C. — ⟨7⟩ Inanta baña⟨8⟩kña ⬦ Inan sabaña⟨8⟩kaña C.

⟨8⟩ ya ⬦ yaṁ C.

⟨9⟩ gālava ⬦ dhalava C • Cf. Samalagi (1v10) dalinan· pu gālava. According to Sanskrit dictiomaries, gālava is the name of an old sage and preceptor. — ⟨9⟩ nāmaṇḍa ⬦ namaṇḍa C.

⟨11⟩ hāji ⬦ haji C. — ⟨11⟩ -kṣai⟨tra⟩- ⬦ -kṣair C • De Casparis has mistaken the suku from line 10 pulaṁ as layar. Nevertheless he did see (note 36) that a syllabe tra has been omitted here. — ⟨11⟩ taraḥ buṅa • De Casparis refers to line 13, where he reads tanaḥ buṅa and suggests that taraḥ might be an error here for tanaḥ. But the reading is taraḥ in both cases.

⟨12⟩ kinaĀyvan· ⬦ tina Ayun· C • De Casparis (note 39) suspected that tiru ayun might be intended. — ⟨12⟩ maṇḍar· ⬦ mandir· C. — ⟨12⟩ va⊔ṅun· baharu ⬦ vaṅur· C.

⟨13⟩ mātrāña ⬦ mātraña C. — ⟨13⟩ taraḥ buṅa ⬦ tanaḥ buṅa C. — ⟨13⟩ poluḥ ⬦ puluḥ C • De Casparis (n. 43) explicitly denies that po is engraved, but he is mistaken. — ⟨13⟩ valunu(,) papos(p)uḥ ⬦ valunuḥ pu posuḥ C.

⟨14⟩ varpattiḥ m(ā)nalu ⬦ varpatiḥ manulu C. — ⟨14⟩ puliṁ hasin ⬦ pulī hasin C. — ⟨14⟩ māntyasiḥ ⬦ mantyāsiḥ C.

⟨15⟩ jñānatatva nāmāṇḍa • At the end of the text, De Casparis (n. 52) describes a clearl;y visible closing symbpl, consisting of two oblique strokes with a circle in between them, but none of this is actually visible on the stone.

Translation

Homage to Śiva! The chiefs around the boundaries (sahiṅ)1 of the hermitage forest, old and young, men and women, may (? au)2 listen to all your works. Virtuous was the action of the lord and lady of the hermitage (named) Ratnamaheśvara. The lord was called Busu Mauṅ, the lady was called Iti.3 The both of them were exceedingly virtuous. The mother (aya)4 of the lord was called parpuantaṅ anakəbi;5 the mother of the lady was called parpuantaṅ panuahan. These were both very fortunate to conceive (respectively) of a jewel of a man and a jewel of a woman. The younger sibling of the lord was called Busu Tamva; the (siblings) in-law of the lord and lady of the hermitage were

Bibliography

Two provisional readings by J. L. A. Brandes (1913); edited again by J. G. de Casparis (1950).6 Re-edited here by Arlo Griffiths from photogrammetry.

Primary

[B] Brandes, Jan Laurens Andries and Nicolaas Johannes Krom. 1913. Oud-Javaansche Oorkonden: Nagelaten transcripties. Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 60 (parts 1 and 2). Batavia; 's-Hage: Albrecht; Nijhoff. [URL]. Pages ???–???, item CV.

[C] de Casparis, Johannes Gijsbertus. 1950. Inscripties uit de Çailendra-tijd. Prasasti Indonesia 1. Bandung: A.C. Nix & Co. Item IV, pages 50–73.

Secondary

Verbeek, Rogier Diederik Marius. 1891. Oudheden van Java: Lijst der voornaamste overblijfselen uit den Hindoetijd op Java, met eene oudheidkundige kaart. Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 46. Batavia; 's-Hage: Landsdrukkerij; Nijhoff. [URL]. Pages 139–140, item 249.

Weatherbee, Donald E. 2000. “The Hyang Haji of the Gandasuli II Inscription, circa 832 AD.” In: Society and culture of Southeast Asia: continuities and changes. Śata-piṭaka 395. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture : Aditya Prakashan, pp. 345–353.

Notes

  1. 1. De Casparis understands sahiṅa-alas.

  2. 2. We speculate that au had a grammatical function like semoga in Modern Malay and muah in other Old Malay texts.

  3. 3. On this passage, see the comments in Damais 1968: 335–336.

  4. 4. That aya means mother was assumed by De Casparis on weak grounds (see the criticism in Damais 1968: 337), but has subsequently been confirmed by the usage in the Sojomerto and Sungai Musi inscriptions.

  5. 5. The word anakəbi means “woman, wife, girl” in Old Javanese.

  6. 6. As pointed out by Damais (1960, 1968), De Casparis misread many cases of ḍ as d. There are many inconsistencies between statements in De Casparis’ notes (whose placement is also often somewhat distant from the characters concerned) and readings adopted in his edition. There are also numerous small typographic errors (e.g., with regard to vowel length) in De Casparis’ edition. Such relatively insignificant variant readings are not recorded in our apparatus.